The
following facts are presented in the light most favorable to
Rote, the nonmoving party:

I.
Allegations Against Correctional Officers

Rote’s
Complaint and subsequent filings raise a variety of
allegations against correctional officers at WCI. First, Rote
alleges that on December 23, 2009, Correctional Officer
Brickman and Sergeant Toolhacker shoved Rote out of his
wheelchair into the snow. One or both of the officers then
kicked him causing two hernias in Rote’s stomach. Rote
received medical treatment the day following the alleged
attack.

Rote,
who is hearing impaired, claims that Mark Yates, a Case
Manager for the Maryland Department of Corrections, denied
Rote access to a teletypewriter (“TTY”), a
machine that helps hearing impaired individuals to
communicate over the telephone. Yates justified the denial by
falsely claiming to have heard Rote talking on the phone
without the use of a TTY. Rote does not indicate when he was
denied use of a TTY, whether that denial is sporadic or
continuous, or whether it impedes his communication over the
phone.

Rote
also alleges that correctional officers, including Sergeant
Daddyman, have invaded his privacy by standing in the doorway
of his cell while he was speaking with prison medical staff.
Rote does not explain when these incidents occurred or
whether they interfered with his treatment.

Finally,
Rote claims that a correctional officer failed to come to his
aid when he complained of head pain. He does not disclose the
name of the officer, the date of the incident, or whether he
ever received medical treatment.[2]

II.
Rote’s Medical Care

Rote
has been diagnosed with bipolar disorder, chronic pain,
hypertension, epilepsy, and ocular hypertension. Rote has
previously had a malignant melanoma and also claims to suffer
from basal cell carcinoma, colon cancer, Crohn’s
disease, shrapnel embedded throughout his body, lumbar disc
herniation, glaucoma, grand mal seizures, and chronic
headaches due to a traumatic brain injury. Medical staff at
WCI have provided him with disposable undergarments because
he is incontinent of bowel and bladder and with prescription
medications for some of his conditions. Although he is
generally dissatisfied with the medical treatment he receives
at WCI, Rote’s primary allegations in this case are
that he is not receiving adequate cancer treatment and that
his hearing aids have been taken from him.

A.
Cancer Treatment

Rote
claims that he has three types of cancer: melanoma, basal
cell carcinoma, and colon cancer. Aside from alleging that he
is afflicted with colon cancer, Rote offers no details on his
treatment or efforts to obtain treatment for this illness.
Records submitted by the Medical Defendants indicate that, on
January 9, 2015, a nurse offered to schedule Rote for a
colonoscopy. He refused. The nurse reported that Rote’s
medical file did not corroborate Rote’s claim that he
had been diagnosed with and treated for colon cancer.

Regarding
the melanoma and carcinoma, Rote acknowledges that he has
attended consultations with dermatologists during his
incarceration at WCI and that moles on his skin have been
biopsied and excised. He alleges, however, that prison
medical staff have not provided appropriate follow-up
treatment. Records submitted by the Medical Defendants
confirm that, between 2012 and 2015, Rote received multiple
consultations with prison medical staff and dermatologists
about moles on his skin. Biopsies were performed on at least
three occasions, and each biopsy showed that the tested moles
were not cancerous. The most recent biopsy, on March 9, 2015,
was performed in conjunction with an excision to remove a
lesion from his skin that ultimately proved non-cancerous.

Rote’s
records show that he has sometimes disagreed with the course
of treatment for his moles. Rote refused consultations with
dermatologists on two occasions, October 2, 2014 and November
14, 2014. He believed that he should see an oncologist
instead. On November 18, 2014, Defendant Ottey decided not to
refer Rote to an oncologist until a biopsy was completed.
Rote withheld his consent for that biopsy on November 22,
2014, but he changed his mind and the procedure was
rescheduled and performed on January 31, 2015. The
dermatologist who performed the biopsy recommended that the
biopsied skin lesion be excised. Rote again initially refused
the procedure, this time because it was to be performed in
Baltimore, where his ex-wife lives. The excision was
rescheduled and performed. The excised lesion was not
malignant, so Rote was not referred to an oncologist.

&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;B.
...

Our website includes the first part of the main text of the court's opinion.
To read the entire case, you must purchase the decision for download. With purchase,
you also receive any available docket numbers, case citations or footnotes, dissents
and concurrences that accompany the decision.
Docket numbers and/or citations allow you to research a case further or to use a case in a
legal proceeding. Footnotes (if any) include details of the court's decision. If the document contains a simple affirmation or denial without discussion,
there may not be additional text.

Buy This Entire Record For
$7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.